I don't think this is actually all that insightful. Political parties are a component of every single democratic system on Earth, and were emerging in America even before Washington "warned" about them. Hell, he was actually doing to support his own faction, beginning the long American tradition of "it's partisanship when the other guy does it."

The real problems here are the assortment of the general population into self-selected "red America" and "blue America", who have different economic priorities, live in different sorts of municipalities, and fundamentally different analyses of the world.

(I'm actually partial to both for some reason: I like the "plainness" of the Reds, but think Blue usually has a somewhat half-decent analysis of reality while Red is usually wildly delusional. My actual preferred analysis might be called "the Other Red", the one with the gold stars and roses and such.)

Complain about "partisanship" all you like, but it won't sort out the difference between someone who thinks the economy runs on consumer demand, thus requiring a level of wages that lets most people consume without much debt, and someone who thinks it runs on manliness and resource extraction, thus requiring wage suppression until all those namby-pambies buck up and do a day's work. Those are just different causal models.

What we could really use is proportional representation, so that "partisanship" could at least sort itself out into multiple competing parties within each of the two broad coalitions, and every well-supported analysis of the world could find some official expression.